At least 19 countries have denied Gary Glitter entry
The disgraced singer, whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd, has to tell authorities of his travel plans seven days in advance because he is on the sex offenders register.

Ashford magistrates granted an order made by Kent Police last Thursday to stop Glitter from travelling to the two European countries. The order will last till March 2009.

The 64-year-old returned to the UK in August after spending 27 months in a Vietnam jail for abusing two young girls in 2006.

A spokesman for HM Court Service said: “On Thursday at Ashford Magistrates Court, in Kent, police applied for and were successful in an application to prevent Foreign Travel to France and Spain until 25 March 2009 by Mr Paul Gadd.

“Paul Gadd did not attend in person but was represented by Corker Binning Solicitors.”

Glitter in an attempt to escape repatriation after his release, flew 2,661 miles from Vietnam to Bangkok, then to Hong Kong, then back to Bangkok. Each country denied him entry.

At least 19 countries have refused to admit him, finally giving him little choice but to return to Britain where he was made to sign the sex offenders register.

The former glam rock star has informed police of his address - which has been kept secret.

Glitter was previously on the Sex Offenders’ Register for seven years, after he was jailed in the UK for four months in 1999 for possessing images of child abuse. He was discovered after a computer repair shop found the indecent images on his laptop.

He served two months of a four-month sentence then left the country and moved to Spain and Cuba before travelling to south-east Asia.

He was expelled from Cambodia after facing allegations of sex crimes and moved to the Vietnamese coastal resort of Vung Tau, before being jailed for molesting the two girls.

Source: The Telegraph
Written by: Urmee Khan

But rank and file members of both the Republican and Democratic parties rebelled, after many received complaints from their constituents throughout the morning about the deal to use taxpayers’ funds to buy devalued assets of major Wall Street firms.

All 435 members of the lower House of Representatives face re-election on Nov 4.

A total of 132 out of 199 Republicans voted against their whips and against their president despite a morning appearance by George W Bush urging them to approve the bill for the good of the nation.

With just a simple majority needed to pass the bill, 94 Democrats joined the rebellion, defeating the bill by 228 to 205. Party whips attempted to twist arms, to no avail. The bill will now have to be reintroduced at a later date.

The bill was defeated by an unlikely alliance of conservative Republicans who viewed the bill as “socialism” and left-wing Democrats who resented the fact that the bill did not contain more provisions to help struggling homeowners.

The Dow Jones industrials dropped suddenly as news of the rejection hit Wall Street. The Dow had already dropped by about 300 points, and then fell a further 300 points in a matter of minutes, before recovering slightly.

House Republicans blamed Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for a partisan speech on the floor shortly before the vote was taken that inflamed feelings and led to members turning against the bill.

John Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, said: “I believe we could have got there today had it not been for a partisan speech that the Speaker gave. The Speaker had to give a partisan voice that poisoned our conference and that caused a number of our members to go south.”

Mr Boehner and other senior party figures said they would work to reform the bill and find a “true middle ground”.

A White House spokesman said Mr Bush was “very disappointed”.

“There’s no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed,” deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said.

He said the president will be meeting members of his team later in the day “to determine next steps”.

At 7.30am, Mr Bush had praised the bill as “strong and decisive legislation” that “will help restart the flow of credit” but Wall Street was fearful that the government’s plan to buy bad debt wouldn’t be sufficient to resuscitate nearly frozen credit markets.

US investors were also unnerved by the buyout of the country’s sixth largest bank Wachovia by Citigroup. By mid-morning the Dow Jones industrial average fell by 2.45 per cent.

The president urged Congress to pass the bill expeditiously and asked voters to remember that a “vote for the bill is a vote to prevent damage to you and your community”.

Congressional leaders had won key concessions from the White House and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, most notably a cap on compensation for bosses at bailed-out firms, a guarantee that the government will be paid back first when troubled assets begin earning again, and the phased introduction, with heavy Congressional oversight, of rescue funds.

Public attitudes to the bailout are at best grudging acceptance and at worst hostility.

Both presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, had expressed their support for the deal.

Source: The Telegraph

Written by: Alex Spillius in Washington

Obama shot back, “I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy. And the strategic question that the president has to ask is not whether or not we are employing a particular approach in the country once we have made the decision to be there.”

McCain drew from his experience overseas as he tried to portray himself as the more qualified candidate.

“Incredibly, incredibly Sen. Obama didn’t go to Iraq for 900 days and never asked for a meeting with Gen. [David] Petraeus,” he said.

McCain slammed Obama for not supporting the surge, an increase of about 30,000 troops to Iraq in early 2007. Bush sent the additional troops as part of a campaign to pacify Baghdad and its surrounding provinces.

“John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007,” Obama shot back. “You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.”

Watch entire debate:

Part 1 » Debate Part 1

Part 2 » Debate Part 2

Part 3 » Debate Part 3

Obama repeatedly criticized the Bush administration and charged that McCain is an endorser of his policies

In describing his tax plan, Obama said, “over time, that, I think, is going to be a better recipe for economic growth than the — the policies of President Bush that John McCain wants to — wants to follow.”

Obama also said the economic crisis is the “final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Sen. McCain.”

Both candidates squeezed in a few cheap shots. Obama brought up McCain’s jokingly singing a line about bombing Iran, and McCain jabbed Obama for his short-lived “presidential seal.”

Immediately after the debate, both campaigns issued statements declaring their candidate the winner.

“This was a clear victory for Barack Obama on John McCain’s home turf. Sen. McCain offered nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies, and Barack Obama made a forceful case for change in our economy and our foreign policy,” said Obama-Biden campaign manager David Plouffe.

“John McCain needed a game-changer tonight, and by any measure, he didn’t get it,” he said.

McCain’s campaign said “there was one man who was presidential tonight; that man was John McCain.”

“There was another who was political; that was Barack Obama. John McCain won this debate and controlled the dialogue throughout, whether it was the economy, taxes, spending, Iraq or Iran. There was a leadership gap, a judgment gap and a boldness gap on display tonight, a fact Barack Obama acknowledged when he said John McCain was right at least five times,” communications director Jill Hazelbaker said.

During the first 30 minutes of the debate, the candidates focused on the economy, even though the debate was supposed to be centered on foreign policy.

For a while, it seemed like the debate might not even take place, because McCain said he would not show up unless Congress came to an agreement on the government’s proposed $700 billion bailout plan.

McCain said Friday that enough progress has been made for him to attend the debate, even though Congress has not made a deal.

Here’s a snapshot of what the candidates said.

On government spending:

McCain said he would consider a spending freeze on everything but defense, veterans affairs and entitlement programs in order to cut back on government spending.

Obama disagreed, saying, “The problem is, you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.

“There are some programs that are very important that are currently underfunded,” Obama said.

He agreed that the government needs to cut spending in some areas, but he said other areas, such as early childhood education, need more funding.

McCain repeated his call to veto every bill with earmarks.

Obama said the country “absolutely” needs earmark reform but said, “the fact is, eliminating earmarks alone is not a recipe for how we are going to get the middle class back on track.”

On the bailout proposal:

Obama said that the United States was facing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

McCain said he was encouraged that Republicans and Democrats were working together to solve the crisis.

Obama refused to be pinned down on whether he would support a $700 billion plan proposed by President Bush’s top economic advisers, saying the final details of the proposal were not known.

McCain said he hoped to be able to vote for it.

On the likelihood of another terrorist attack:

McCain that another attack on the scale of the September 11 hijackings is “much less likely” now than it was the day after the terrorist attacks.

“America is safer now than it was on 9/11,” he said, “But we have a long way to go before we can declare America safe.”

Obama agreed that the United States is “safer in some ways” but said the country needed to focus more on issues such as nuclear non-proliferation and restoring America’s image in the world.

On relations with Russia:

Obama called for a re-evaluation of the United States’ approach to Russia in light of the country’s recent military action in the Caucasus.

“You cannot be a 21st-century superpower and act like a 20th-century dictatorship,” he said.

McCain accused Obama of responding naively to Russia’s invasion of neighboring Georgia last month by calling on both sides to exercise restraint.

McCain said he would support the inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.

On Iran:

McCain said Iranian nuclear weapons would be an “existential threat to the state of Israel” and would encourage other countries in the Middle East to seek nuclear weapons as well.

“We cannot allow another Holocaust,” he said.

Obama agreed that the United States “cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran,” calling for tougher sanctions from a range of countries including Russia and China.

McCain called for a new “league of democracies” to stand firm against Iran.

On Iraq:

McCain said the next president will have to decide when and how to leave Iraq and what the United States will leave behind.

The Republican candidate said that the war had been badly managed at the beginning but that the United States was now winning, thanks to a “great general and a strategy that succeeded.”

“Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq,” McCain said.

Obama responded, “that’s not true; that’s not true.”

He blasted McCain as having been wrong about the war at the start, saying McCain had failed to anticipate the uprising against U.S. forces and violence between rival religious groups in the country.

“At the time when the war started, you said it was quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were,” Obama said, citing the key White House policy justifying the 2003 invasion.

“You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong,” he said.

The operation will be broadcast live on television across China.

Conducting operations outside a spacecraft is essential if China is to fulfil its goal of building an orbiting station in the next few years.

The 42-year-old fighter pilot Zhai Zhigang is due to carry out the manoeuvre at 1630 Beijing Time (0830 GMT) on Saturday.

The Shenzhou VII capsule soared into orbit on a Long March II-F rocket from Jiuquan spaceport in north-west China.

The rocket put the Shenzhou capsule in a near-circular orbit more than 300km above the Earth.

Mr Zhai is joined on the mission by two other “yuhangyuan” (astronauts) - Liu Boming and Jing Haipeng.

Zhang Jianqi, one of the chief engineers for China’s space programme, said keeping three men in the spacecraft, and then sending one outside, would be a “big test”.

“This is a big technological leap,” he told state-run news agency Xinhua.

“The risks are quite high. Sending up three astronauts is a jump both in quantity and quality.”

When Mr Zhai carries out his excursion, he is expected to wear a Chinese-made spacesuit thought to have cost between £5m and £20m ($10m-$40m).

The yuhanguan will be tethered to the capsule with an umbilical cable.

His back-up, Mr Liu, will monitor the activity, presumably to reel the spacewalker back inside if there is an emergency.

Mr Zhai will retrieve an externally mounted experiment and oversee the release of a satellite.

The ship will then release a 40kg (88lb) satellite which will circle the orbiter and beam back images to mission control.

At the end of the mission, the Shenzhou re-entry capsule will target a landing in north China’s Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.

China became only the third nation after the United States and Russia to independently put a man in space when Yang Liwei, another fighter pilot, went into orbit on the Shenzhou V mission in October 2003.

Two years later, Fei Junlong and Nie Haisheng completed a five-day flight on Shenzhou VI.

According to the Associated Press, Xinhua posted an article on its website prior to the lift-off that was written as if Shenzhou VII had already been launched into space.

HAVE A LOOK AT THIS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7636114.stm

The article reportedly carried a date of 27 September and came complete with a dialogue between the astronauts.

Chinese media report that this latest mission is the “most critical step” in the country’s “three-step” space programme.

These stages are: sending a human into orbit, docking spacecraft together to form a small laboratory and, ultimately, building a large space station.

The Shenzhou VIII and IX missions are expected to help set up a space laboratory complex in 2010.

China launched an unmanned Moon probe last year about one month after rival Japan blasted its own lunar orbiter into space.

Mr Motlanthe is seen as a calming figure who could help heal tensions in the divided party.

He will serve until polls next year, when Mr Mbeki’s rival, Jacob Zuma, is widely expected to become president.

Thabo Mbeki resigned on Sunday over claims of political interference in a corruption case against Mr Zuma.

He denies the allegations but said he was stepping down at the request of the ANC in the interests of party unity.

Kgalema Motlanthe will be elected at a parliamentary sitting in Cape Town.

He is a long-serving member of the ANC hierarchy and a man generally seen as a safe pair of hands, reports the BBC’s Southern Africa correspondent, Peter Biles.

The immediate task will be to ensure a smooth political transition, given much talk of feuding and divisions within the ANC, our reporter adds.

Mr Mbeki’s departure has led to a flurry of resignations from the cabinet and caused uncertainty on the markets.

“Look at the topics that people here are covering - sports, politics, religion, technology, finance and military bloggers to name just a few. We have had attendees flying in from around the world, but the one thing that links them all is their passion for this new media.”

It is the connections between these groups, and the spirit of sharing that was on show both at the conference and online every day, that drives the rich and diverse modern internet.

Both the individual blogger and the larger media companies are looking for ways to make the business of blogging profitable.

One of the rules of thumb that came up on the panel discussions at BlogWorld was that there is still the same amount of advertising money out there, but rather than be restricted to a few media conglomerates, it is being shared out a lot more.

Sharing culture

Larger companies are seeing advertising revenue drop, while bloggers are seeing their incomes rise.

What seems to be working well at the moment for the full-time bloggers at the Expo is affiliate marketing.

Rather than being paid to display an advert on their site, affiliate marketing only pays the blogger when their reader acts on the displayed advert.

This could be as simple a goal as clicking on the advert, through to receiving a percentage of any item the reader buys via an advert.

Amazon offers a large affiliate program, where people can receive up to 15% of the sale price of an item as commission by referring their readers to the site.

How well these techniques would translate to the larger sites of traditional media companies remains to be seen, but there are a number of profitable new media companies, such as b5media, that not only show that it can be done, but are actively sharing how they have achieved their success and are more than happy to help others to do the same.

This culture of sharing that runs through the blogging scene is one reason that this new medium is such a breath of fresh air to many.

Social experience

The idea of small connections building up to create something of value was illustrated by Laura Fitton, of Pistachio Consulting.

Explaining her first moments on Twitter (a micro-blogging service where people can post messages that are a maximum of 140 characters in length), she saw the initial view that presented the messages of everyone on the site - a rather overwhelming moment that caused her, and others, to come away with a poor first impression.

But once she started to tell Twitter who her friends were, and those people she wanted to follow that were in her field of expertise, then Twitter became a much more social experience with conversations between old and new friends, and it became much more useful to her.

In a short space of time, she started a new business helping companies make the best use of services like Twitter to build up their own online connections.

Making these connections is one of the hidden secrets of the internet.

Relevant media

With more sites out there providing rich media on pretty much any topic, building this web of connections can take time.

Europe-based start-up Zemanta had one of the more impressive software demonstrations at the expo.

Their code, which can be plugged into the popular blogging system WordPress, will automatically seek out relevant media to any post that you are writing on sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and many others.

These links are then posted on your site alongside each story, making your posts part of the ongoing and continuing conversations.

Blogging is still a nascent industry but on the strength of the BlogWorld Expo, the pioneers have put down not only a strong groundwork for those that are following them, but have also put in place a rich ecosystem that rewards openness and sharing.

There may be a wide choice of tools, all being used by disparate groups with distinct aims, but the result is the same.

Blogs help people around the world to communicate their interests and passion with others and allows people to find this information with ease.

The early years of blogging are coming to a close, and while they have been very successful, the feeling from the BlogWorld Expo is that blogging is going to continue to grow and mature into a powerful communications channel for everyone.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said restarting its nuclear programme would deepen Pyongyang’s isolation, but she added that talks were not dead.

The UN’s atomic watchdog earlier said it had removed seals and surveillance cameras from part of the Yongbyon plant at North Korea’s request.

The move comes amid a dispute over an international disarmament-for-aid deal.

North Korea said it planned to restart nuclear activities earlier this month because the US had not fulfilled its part of the deal to remove Pyongyang from its terrorism blacklist.

The White House said that would only happen when North Korea allowed monitors to verify claims it had made about its nuclear arms programme.

The UN nuclear inspectors have been expelled from the most sensitive part of the Yongbyon facility: the reprocessing plant which can be used to make weapons-grade plutonium.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that Pyongyang intended to introduce nuclear material at the facility next week.

Its inspectors had been observing the process to shut down Yongbyon - as part of a deal struck in six-party talks with South Korea, the US, China, Russia and Japan.

Ms Rice said that discussions with the North on its obligations for denuclearisation were “by no means” dead.

“We’ve been through ups and downs in this process before. The important thing is that this is a six-party process and that means there other states that are carrying the same message,” she said.

Symbolic gesture

Pyongyang began dismantling the reactor last November.

It was expecting to be removed from the US terror list after submitting a long-delayed account of its nuclear facilities to the international talks in June, in accordance with the disarmament deal it signed in 2007.

It also blew up the main cooling tower at Yongbyon in a symbolic gesture of its commitment to the process.

However, the US said it would not remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism until procedures by which the North’s disarmament would be verified were established.

The North has been locked in international discussions for years over its nuclear ambitions.

North and South Korea have been technically at war since their 1950-53 conflict ended without a peace treaty.

Fuel rods

Experts say the Yongbyon plant could take up to a year to bring back into commission, so there will be no new plutonium production for a while.

However, there is plenty already available in the form of the spent fuel rods, taken from the reactor core, but only removed to a water-cooled tank on the site, says the BBC’s John Sudworth in Seoul.

It is this nuclear material that will now be introduced into the separate plutonium reprocessing plant, according to the information given to the IAEA.

Some estimates suggest the fuel rods could yield about 6kg (13lbs) of plutonium within two to three months - enough for one atomic bomb to add to North Korea’s existing stockpile.

He spoke after receiving a report from a task force he appointed early in the year to investigate and immediately recover the looted billions. The President’s assurance could not have come sooner as the people were becoming sceptical and questioning his administration’s real commitment to fighting graft in high places.

Queries have been raised in several quarters on the very decision by the President to form the task force, after going through a cogent report compiled by an international audit firm, Ernst & Young, which unearthed the monstrous rip-off. The report was handed to the Head of State on January 7.

The audit revealed that 22 companies received dubious payments from the BoT under the EPA scheme. They include 13 local companies, which pocketed Sh90,359,078,804 (about $78 million) using forged documents during the 2005/6 financial year.

This was so, yet the companies were not supposed to be paid even a single cent, Ernst & Young concluded in its report compiled after investigations spanning four months.

So when President Kikwete named the task force headed by Attorney-General Johnson Mwanyika, and which included Inspector-General of Police Said Mwema, and the Director-General of the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Bureau (PCCB), Dr Edward Hosea, some wondered what this new team would add to what the auditors had done.

We, therefore, hope that this is the turning point that all have been expecting. That action is going to be taken against all those named in the audit as having benefited from the massive theft. We have no reason to doubt that the President will act swiftly, as he has promised and help bring to justice all the culprits regardless of their social or political status.

The President must act soon to call the critics’ bluff and regain the confidence of the people and donors in his government. The ball is squarely in his court.

SOURCE: The Citizen Newspaper

Akitoa uamuzi huo jana, Jaji wa mahakama hiyo, Catherine Urio, alisema ili mahakama iweze kutoa zuio, lazima kitu kinachogombewa kiwe katika hali fulani.

Jaji huyo alisema, katika hoja zote zilizoletwa mahakamani hapo na walalamikaji (wasanii) na EATV (walalamikiwa), hakuna yeyote aliyeonyesha kutumia alama ya Ze Comedy kwa sasa, ingawa wadaiwa wa kwanza, EATV, wameomba kuwa wamiliki wa jina hilo kwa mdaiwa wa pili (COSOTA), lakini bado ombi hilo halijatekelezwa.

Aliongeza kuwa, walalamikaji (Ze Comedy), walikuwa na kibali cha kulitumia jina hilo la Ze Comedy Production kwa mwaka mmoja, kuanzia Julai mosi mwaka 2007 hadi Juni 30 mwaka huu.

Alisema, licha ya kibali cha wasanii hao cha kutumia jina la Ze Comedy kwisha, hakuna maombi ya kibali kingine, huku EATV wakiwasilisha maombi COSOTA kutaka kupewa umikili wa jina la Ze Comedy.

Jaji alisema, kwa mazingira, mahakama inatakiwa kutoa uamuzi kwa uangalifu mkubwa pasipo kuingilia hoja za kesi ya msingi ambayo bado haijaanza kusikilizwa.

Alisema kutokana na hilo, mahakama imeona si sahihi kisheria kwa sasa kuruhusu kazi na jina la Ze Comedy kuendelea kutumika kabla ya kesi ya msingi haijaamuliwa.

Kuhusu madai ya wasanii wa Ze Comedy kutaka EATV iwalipe fidia ya usumbufu katika uamuzi wa ombi la awali, mahakama pia imetupa ombi hilo.

Baada ya kutupwa kwa ombi hilo la awali, kesi ya msingi sasa itaanza kusikilizwa Oktoba 21.

Wasanii waliokuwa wakiunda kundi la Ze Comedy, baada ya kujiondoa katika umiliki wa EATV na kuhamia TBC1, EATV wakawazuia wasanii hao kutumia jina hilo na majina yao na vionjo walivyokuwa wakitumia awali.

Awali ya yote, naomba nianze kuzungumzia kwanza klabu husika, yaani Simba na Yanga, zenye maskani yao Kariakoo, jijini Dar es Salaam.

Hizi ni maarufu na kongwe nchini kuliko nyingine zilizoanzishwa zaidi ya miaka 70 iliyopita, Yaani Yanga mwaka 1935 na Simba mwaka 1936.

Hivyo, kama ni binadamu, Yanga na Simba, zilipaswa kupewa hadhi ya mtu mzima mwenye uwezo wa kujikimu yeye na familia yake na ikiwa sivyo, basi itakuwa ni bahati mbaya.

Kama mtu huyo angekuwa anajihusisha na biashara au kazi nyingine zozote zile kama za kuajiriwa au kujiajiri na akawa mtu makini katika malengo yake, basi tunaweza kusema kwa kweli maendeleo ya mtu wa umri huo, yangeonekana wazi wazi.

Narudia tena, kwa mtu inaweza kuwa tofauti kwa mapenzi ya Mwenyezi Mungu, kwamba mja, hakuweza kubahatika pamoja na jitihada kubwa alizofanya katika maisha yake.

Baada ya utangulizi huo, nirejee kwenye mada yangu kuhusu klabu hizi za Simba na Yanga.

Imekuwa ni kawaida kuona, kusikia au kusoma magazeti, redio au televisheni habari mbalimbali za klabu hizi za Yanga na Simba, kiasi hata cha kutia kichefuchefu.

Wakati fulani, unaweza kujiuliza hivi hakuna habari nyingine za michezo na burudani zaidi ya Simba na Yanga?

Ukiwauliza wahusika, watakueleza kuwa, habari za klabu hizo ndizo zenye mvuto kwa wasomaji, kwa maneno mengine biashara iko katika klabu hizo na si vinginevyo.

Sina maana kuwa habari nyingine haziandikwi, la hasha; ninachosema ni kile kiwango cha kuandikwa kwake, kwani hakulingani na hizi za Simba na Yanga.

Binafsi sikubaliani hata kidogo na dhana hiyo, haingii akilini mwa mtu makini kila wakati kuona habari za klabu mbili tu za Simba na Yanga zikipewa umuhimu mkubwa kuliko nyingine.

Kila kukicha, habari zenyewe ni migogoro ya uongozi, wanachama, posho za wachezaji, mikataba na madudu mengine ambayo yamekuwa sehemu ya maisha ya klabu hizi hata kutia aibu.

Imewahi kutokea hata baadhi ya viongozi wa serikali, hususan wenye dhamana ya michezo, kupoteza muda au hata kutumia fedha za walipa kodi kujiingiza katika kutatua migogoro binafsi ya klabu hizi.

Si vibaya kwa kiongozi wa kitaifa kama waziri kufanya hivyo, lakini ninachohoji hapa ni kiongozi husika kufanya hivyo akiwa kama waziri au kiongozi wa kitaifa ndani ya ofisi za umma huku akitumia rasilimali za umma.

Binafasi, ninatoa ushauri kwa viongozi wa aina hiyo kwamba hata kama ni shabiki wa klabu mojawapo ya hizi mbili kwa sababu si kosa, basi afanye hivyo kama mtu binafsi.

Na hata anapoamua kwenda kuhudhuria mechi za timu hizo au nyingine, isipokuwa timu ya taifa, aende kwa gharama zake kama mashabiki na wapenzi wengine wanavyofanya si kwa kutumia fedha za walipa kodi.

Nimelazimika kuyasema haya yote kwa kuwa hizo ni klabu kama zilivyo nyingine, hazina sababu ya kupewa kipaumbele cha ziada tofauti na timu zingine, tofauti na ilivyo kwa timu ya taifa.

Kama akifanya hivyo kwa timu ya taifa, ni sawa kabisa na si kwa timu ya taifa ya mpira wa miguu pekee, bali kwa michezo yote.

Inasikitisha kuona michezo mingine hususan timu za taifa za michezo mingine zikiachwa bila msaada wowote.

Hapa tunawaona viongozi wa juu wa serikali wenye dhamana ya kusimamia michezo wakijikita kwenye klabu binafsi, hii si sawa.

Juni mwaka huu, kulikuwa na michezo ya riadha ngazi ya taifa mkoani Singida, ambayo kila mmoja alisikia ilivyoendeshwa katika mazingira magumu ya ukata, hali iliyofanya kuwe na huduma duni.

Hali hiyo ilisababisha hata vyama vya michezo kutaka kuhamisha michezo hiyo kwenda mkoa mwingine, wakidhani hiyo ingekuwa suluhisho la tatizo.

Nakumbuka fedha ambazo zilihitajika kufanikisha yale mashindano ya kitaifa, zilikuwa ni kati ya sh mil. 30-40, ambazo waandaaji hawakuwa nazo.

Baada ya kuhangaika kwa muda mrefu wakitafuta wadhamini, hatimaye mashindano hayo yalifanyika, lakini katika hali duni mno.

Tulisikia wanariadha wakilalamika kufanya mazoezi bila hata kula, hii ni aibu kubwa na fedheha kwa wizara husika.

Ni aibu kwa sababu ni mashindano ambayo yalijulikana na hakuna asiyejua umuhimu wa mashindano yale ya taifa ambayo hukutanisha nyota wa mikoa yote ya Bara.

Aidha, tumeshuhudia Ligi Daraja la Kwanza ya netibali 2008 iliyofika kikomo kwa Jeshi Stars kutwaa ubingwa ambayo kutokana na ukata, timu nane zilishindwa kushiriki.

Kwa kushindwa kushiriki, kwa sasa zinalazimika kulipa faini ya sh 300,000 kila moja kama zinataka kuepuka kushuka daraja, huku zikipewa muda wa kukamilisha hilo hadi Agosti 30.

Kadiri itakavyokuwa, hakuna timu isiyopenda kushiriki mashindano kwani ndiyo mantiki ya uwepo wake, lakini ukata ndiyo tatizo kubwa.

Tujiulize kitu kimoja, kama timu ilishindwa kushiriki mashindano kwa kukosa fedha, hizo za kulipa faini zitatoka wapi?

Yote haya yangeepukwa kama Ligi ya Netiboli ingekuwa na wadhamini kama vile TBL katika kukuza mchezo huo nchini ambao ni ajira kwa vijana.

Baada ya kueleza hayo, kama kweli TBL lengo lao si biashara, walikuwa wapi kusaidia mashindano kama yale ya riadha mkoani Singida au Ligi Daraja la Kwanza netiboli ?

Aidha, kama kweli lengo la TBL ni kuinua kiwango cha michezo Tanzania kwa maana michezo ni ajira, walikuwa wapi kusaidia timu ya Tanzania iliyokwenda kushiriki michezo ya Olimpiki inayoendelea Beijing, China?

Nakumbuka namna viongozi wa vyama vya michezo hata Kamati ya Olimpiki Tanzania (TOC), walivyokuwa wakihaha kusaka fedha za kuandaa timu na kuisafirisha.

Kama TBL haikuwa na fedha za kusaidia timu ya Olimpiki na mashindano ya taifa ya riadha kule Singida, hizo za kumwaga kwa Yanga na Simba zimetoka wapi?

Tuna haki ya kuhoji kwa kuwa TBL, ni kampuni ya umma, hivyo pamoja na kusaidia mchezo wa kikapu, ina wajibu wa kuangalia michezo mingine pia kama lengo ni kukuza michezo kwa ujumla.

Ukija katika kikapu, TBL imedhamini ligi yote na siyo timu moja na ndiyo maana najiuliza kwa nini TBL wasitoe udhamini kwa timu zote zinazoshiriki Ligi Kuu kama ilivyo kwa wenzao wa Serengeti Breweries kwa timu ya taifa, Taifa Stars?

Na hiki ndicho kinanifanya nieleze hisia zangu kwamba kwa kitendo cha kudhamini timu mbili kati ya 12 katika ligi, si kukuza soka bali ni kujielekeza katika biashara zaidi.

Kama TBL ina uwezo wa kutoa sh bil. moja kwa mwaka kwa Simba na Yanga kwa muda wa miaka mitatu, imeshindwa nini kudhamini ligi hiyo kwa manufaa ya timu zote?

Chini ya mkataba kati ya TBL na klabu za Simba na Yanga, sh mil. 754 kati ya sh bil. moja kwa kila klabu, zitakuwa kwa ajili ya timu huku nyingine ni kwa ajili ya uendeshaji.

Hapa sasa ndipo ninapothibitisha tena yale niliyoyasema awali kwamba, hii ni kampuni ya umma, ingawa imebinafsishwa kwa kiasi fulani, lakini serikali ingali na hisa zake.

Hisa hizo za serikali, ni fedha za walipa kodi. Sasa iweje TBL ijiingize kwenye udhamini wa klabu mbili tu katika ligi moja na kuziacha nyingine?

Nirudie tena, hii ingekuwa kampuni ya mtu binafsi, nisingelalamika. Kwa mantiki hiyo, kauli ya TBL kupitia kwa Mkurugenzi wa Masoko, David Minja, kuwa, udhamini wao kwa Yanga na Simba umelenga kukuza kiwango cha soka nchini, ni kichekesho.

Migogoro isiyoisha kila siku pamoja na Yanga kugomea mechi, kulikoiletea aibu Tanzania kwenye Kombe la Kagame!

Nikija kwenye hoja ya kukuza soka, hivi udhamini wa timu mbili kati ya 12 ndiko kukuza soka?

Hivi kwa mfano timu nyingine zikajitoa katika Ligi Kuu (sipendi litokee), Yanga na Simba zitabaki peke yao zikicheza ligi?

Ni wazi, ikiwa hivyo hata hicho kiwango kinachoelezwa kwa Yanga na Simba, hakitaonekana, kwa sababu bila hizo zinazobezwa na TBL, umahiri wa Yanga na Simba hauwezi kuonekana.

Aidha, kama kweli lengo la TBL, ni kukuza soka, kwa nini hizo fedha zisielekezwe katika programu ya soka ya vijana kuanzia shuleni kwa nchi nzima?

Huko ndiko ambako vipaji vinapaswa kuibuliwa na kukuzwa kama ambavyo sera ya michezo ya serikali kuhusu michezo shuleni ilivyoeleza.

Jingine tunalopaswa kujiuliza ni kwamba, hivi kwa umri wa Simba na Yanga, zinapaswa kubebwa kwa mbeleko?

Hatukatai kubebwa kwao, lakini na wengine nao wabebwe kwa sababu ni wachanga kuliko wao, hivyo kama udhamini huu ungekuwa kwa timu zote za Ligi Kuu, ile dhana ya kukuza kiwango cha soka, ingekuwa imetimia na hakuna mtu ambaye angehoji.